Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[sherlockh]

Thank you. Guede would have made four trips between Meredith's bedroom and the bathroom if we believe that he got towels and he washed his clothes. If he only got towels, there would be fewer prints. If he didn't get towels, there would be no prints. There are no prints. If Knox boogied down the hall on the bath mat, there would be blood on the bottom of the bathmat, but this would not remove luminol evidence of prints.

However, it doesn't end there. After having her boogie on the bathmat to her bedroom, we have her standing barefoot in front of Meredith's bedroom door, but now she has fruit pulp, iron rich water, or bleach on the bottoms of her feet.

Even in the visible bloody shoe print trail of Guede there are prints missing. The print where he stepped in blood is missing, no prints where he walked through the door, and a print in front of Knox's room is missing. Where did these prints go?

IMO. This is all explained by the cleaning evidence, the bloody female shoe print on the pillow, and the lamp on the floor. They were not cleaning 'DNA' but prints. In the process of cleaning these prints a few of Guede's prints had to be cleaned as well.

 

[sherlockh]

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=5339

Stop withholding evidence, judge orders Amanda Knox prosecution (2011): http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...evidence-judge-tells-amanda-knox-prosecution/

does anyone know if stephanoni ever provided her reports as requested?

Prosecutor Crini mentioned it. The document of the negative controls was deposited with the court. The raw data was available on the machine. I don't know what else was the problem. Maybe Bongiorno will explain it later.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...rosecutor_alessandro_crini_proposes_30_years/

 

[otto]

Even in the visible bloody shoe print trail of Guede there are prints missing. The print where he stepped in blood is missing, no prints where he walked through the door, and a print in front of Knox's room is missing. Where did these prints go?

IMO. This is all explained by the cleaning evidence, the bloody female shoe print on the pillow, and the lamp on the floor. They were not cleaning 'DNA' but prints. In the process of cleaning these prints a few of Guede's prints had to be cleaned as well.

If the print where he stepped in blood is missing, wouldn't that mean that he stepped in the blood when it was wet? If it was wet or smeared, it wouldn't leave a print. If the blood was partially, or completely, dry, he would have left a print. If it was wet, he should have left prints from that blood pool onward (whether or not he went into the small bathroom) ... was the dictionary in a different location, but it was moved and turned over?

Is the attached photo evidence of cleaning?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Even in the visible bloody shoe print trail of Guede there are prints missing. The print where he stepped in blood is missing, no prints where he walked through the door, and a print in front of Knox's room is missing. Where did these prints go?

IMO. This is all explained by the cleaning evidence, the bloody female shoe print on the pillow, and the lamp on the floor. They were not cleaning 'DNA' but prints. In the process of cleaning these prints a few of Guede's prints had to be cleaned as well.

Is this the Rudy Guede was a patsy theory?

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Is the attached photo evidence of cleaning?

No, cleaning like this isn't possible, because the contour isn't smeared.

 

[sherlockh]

If the print where he stepped in blood is missing, wouldn't that mean that he stepped in the blood when it was wet? If it was wet or smeared, it wouldn't leave a print. If the blood was partially, or completely, dry, he would have left a print. If it was wet, he should have left prints from that blood pool onward (whether or not he went into the small bathroom) ... was the dictionary in a different location, but it was moved and turned over?

Is the attached photo evidence of cleaning?

Yes, could be that wet blood covered a print, but I would expect more prints leading to the bed prints. I think the pillow was by the bed as well. I know he was a basketball player but I don't see how he got to the bed with blood on his shoe and leaving no further prints from the blood pool.

 

[otto]

I made a copy of the chart that was posted recently related to Meredith's DNA tests, where it is demonstrated that there are two sets of test results. Apparently Sollecito posted this chart on his site. If it is relevant, the courts also have a copy.

Are there records indicating that two tests were carried out on Meredith's DNA (found on the blade of the alleged weapon) and even the more sensitive test was a resounding confirmation that it was Meredith's DNA? I've recently seen records, but are they legitimate?

Why would Sollecito post a chart that confirmed Meredith's DNA on the knife? Is he distancing himself from Knox by leaving the knife with the two sets of DNA in her hands, at the same time downplaying his DNA on the clasp?

 

[otto]

No, cleaning like this isn't possible, because the contour isn't smeared.

Was it the blue mat, and it was moved? Did the dictionary make the half rectangle shape, and it was flipped over after the murder? The laptop was on the desk, so perhaps another book made the half rectangle shape? Other than the half rectangle, in my opinion, the contour appears smeared.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Was it the blue mat, and it was moved? Did the dictionary make the half rectangle shape, and it was flipped over after the murder? The laptop was on the desk, so perhaps another book made the half rectangle shape? Other than the half rectangle, in my opinion, the contour appears smeared.

The object is unknown.

Could you mark the smeared points?

 

[otto]

Yes, could be that wet blood covered a print, but I would expect more prints leading to the bed prints. I think the pillow was by the bed as well. I know he was a basketball player but I don't see how he got to the bed with blood on his shoe and leaving no further prints from the blood pool.

In order to wrap a theory around evidence, it is sometimes necessary to introduce imaginings. There is a bloody barefoot print in the bathroom. It has been attributed to Sollecito. In order to dispute this, Guede has to be placed barefoot in the bathroom. The corridor prints attributed to Guede have him wearing shoes and leaping from Meredith's bedroom towards the exit.

So the problem is that Guede's shoe prints seem to be illogical and missing not only in the corridor, but also in Meredith's bedroom. Running out of the bedroom, down the corridor and to the exit is explained with luminol.

Upthread there is an illustration with prints near the doorway and in the middle of the room. Are there no other prints belonging to Guede in the bedroom?

 

[otto]

The object is unknown.

Could you mark the smeared points?

The blue mat in the bedroom is here, and then the zoomed image where there is a question about what left a clean stencil area on the floor in blood.

 

[otto]

The object is unknown.

Could you mark the smeared points?

I no longer have a reference to the original photo because I have modified it and I'm still modifying it. The reference is linked upthread. The yellow line identifies the area that appears clean, as though something was moved or cleaned.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

The blue mat in the bedroom is here, and then the zoomed image where there is a question about what left a clean stencil area on the floor in blood.

The object is unknown.

I have asked for the smeared points of the contour of the unknown object, but no specific answer.

 

[otto]

The object is unknown.

I have asked for the smeared points of the contour of the unknown object, but no specific answer.

The contour of the area in question is defined with the yellow line. There's the half rectangle on the left, the smear on the top and bottom.

 

[Katody]

From transcript:
Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.

Why do you say it's from the transcript when it is not?

This in not a quote, not even a paraphrase. It's made up.

It baffles me to see falsehoods being injected as facts constantly like this. Yesterday Otto wrote about the washing machine found still running which would be a very damning evidence if only it wasn't a falsehood. Now this.

 

[otto]

Why do you say it's from the transcript when it is not?

This in not a quote, not even a paraphrase. It's made up.

It baffles me to see falsehoods being injected as facts constantly like this. Yesterday Otto wrote about the washing machine found still running which would be a very damning evidence if only it wasn't a falsehood. Now this.

If the quote from the wiretap is incorrect, perhaps you could provide the correct text. What did Edda say to Knox on November 10 about the first phone call, and what did Knox say in response?

The Postal Police reported that they were in the kitchen and did not check the washing machine when they arrived. It sounds like either Knox wrote down Meredith's phone numbers and that was on the table, or the phones were on the table. Filomina reported that the contents of the laundry (kept in a black bag) belonged to Meredith. I don't read Italian, so I have no idea whether the washing machine was warm or running. I was trusting the translations.

 

[sherlockh]

Was it the blue mat, and it was moved? Did the dictionary make the half rectangle shape, and it was flipped over after the murder? The laptop was on the desk, so perhaps another book made the half rectangle shape? Other than the half rectangle, in my opinion, the contour appears smeared.

Whatever it was, it must have gotten blood on it.

 

[Katody]

I wonder what it is that shocked her, since the blood in the bathroom, missing towels, feces, open door and broken window did not shock her - and more importantly, Meredith's body had not yet been found.

What shocked Amanda Knox at 12:47 on the day that Meredith's murder was discovered?

SMK's 'quote from transcript' is made up. I guess it's bias skewing the recollection and unwillingness to look at the sources before writing something as fact. Now others follow up and the falsehood takes a life among the facts.

Just like the falsehood about 'running washing machine' that was posted yesterday. I do hope you will check the sources about it, Otto, and update us, as you promised.

 

[Katody]

If the quote from the wiretap is incorrect, please provide the correct text. What did Edda say to Knox on November 10 about the first phone call, and what did Knox say in response?

I quoted it yesterday:

"A): It was strange. I mean, it’s even difficult for me to remember exactly when... everything happened in the house... because I was shocked. I remember having called Filomena. I don’t remember that I called you, I don’t remember.
M): Oh, oh, really?
A): No, I don’t remember in fact having called you.
M): Well, I... you’d called me three times.
A): Oh, I don’t remember this.
M): OK, you’d called me once telling me...
A): Honestly, maybe I was shocked.
M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house...
A): I know that I was calling, but I remember that I was calling Filomena; I don’t remember having called anyone else, and so the whole thing of having called you... I don’t remember.
M): Mhmm... why? Do you think? Stress?"​

The source is Galati-Costagiola appeal to the supreme court.

I don't see in here the two sentences SMK wrote are from the transcript. Maybe there's a different transcript somewhere. If so, I'd love to see it posted.

 

[Yellow]

It seems like the prosecutor just focuses on these minor incosequential things instead of really attacking the meat of the defense argument

1) why should C&V not be trusted? The burden here is not to just show that prosecution has a better argument, it is to show that C&V are essentially incompetent. People say it, but what proof is there that C&V are incompetent or did the testing wrong? Mere disagreements about Conclusions or using prosecutor arguments (ie, like saying they did not find DNA like they should have... But of course the two sides disagree in using low copy DNA so one cannot use conclusions to prove why C&V are wrong. Why should they be disregarded?

Courts are loathe to ignore the findings of independent experts. Prosecution seems like it is all smoke and mirrors instead of really showing why an unaccredited DNA lab (them) should be trusted over experts the court appointed and all sides i assume agreed to. Given there is no evidence if corruption, prosecution has an uphill battle to show why they should not be trusted.

2) the knife is a huge problem. Why no blood? Prosecution just ignores this key fact. That knife should have been teaming w MK DNA, and not just low copy and it should have been blood

3) if they are going to ignore their biggest weaknesses (the DNA and the knife) they at least have to prove the footsteps. But without proving it was made in MK blood (no proof of MK DNA and dispute about whether blood) their case falls apart. And if they want to rely on footsteps, they need to show where the footsteps went in the murder room. What did suspects do, hop all around? It does not make sense

So yeah, given the fact that the prosecution and those on that side ignore these questions, it is no surprise that all they are left with is squabbles about when AK called her mother, in order to infer some sort of nefarious implication. I actually have never seen in any trial anywhere some of the implications being made here. Maybe it is just posters hypothesizing but if some of these are really things the prosecutor is saying I think some of these inference scenarios are a huge stretch. Especially when you have a murder weapon without blood, and no evidence of the suspects in the murder room, it strikes as desperation to focus on such incosequential things.